Welcome to DBSTalk

Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!

For those of us in the industry, this was a real eye opener. Viacom got humiliated, that's the best way I can state it and the chatter among nearly everyone I speak to that does this for a living.

Humiliated, publicly undressed, you name it. They thought they had the leverage and DTV got what they wanted from what I hear. The channels are back up, they aren't paying anything close to the 30% and if I am a betting man, Epix isn't coming. Meanwhile, Viacom got clobbered in the ratings, have to give make-goods to advertisers, likely lost some of their digital rights and they helped their competition like Disney, Sprout and others gain market share.

WHAT AN ABSOLUTE DEBACLE FOR VIACOM.

There is no other way to put it. I've also not seen a major programmer act in such a low brow manner as they did. The sniping on both sides was not needed, but especially what Viacom had done. When they altered the video of DTV's CEO Mike White and called him a liar, that is not something you do. The 26 channels BS right from the start was garbage. The comment that DTV was only negotiating 10 minutes a day - knowing a few folks over at Viacom and DTV, that was a bald face lie and Denise Denson should apologize for that rhetoric. Unprofessional.

The relationship will take some time to heal. Redstone must be fuming.

DTV certainly lost some customers but they came out stronger from this. This was a strategic battle they picked and sends a message to the other majors out there. The message is simple, we can live for a long time without you and we are willing to lose customers. The days of grow grow grow subscribers at all costs are over, we can sustain what you throw at us so think real hard before you do it.

That's my view from inside the television world in talking to friends and colleagues the last few days.

I really can't understand why Viacom took this route. All of our sniping at them here over the past couple of weeks aside, Viacom...like DirecTV...is a major public company and knows how to properly negotiate. The mess, yes, mess it created by aiming its characters at children(?), blowing the cover off of the negotiations in the beginning and publicly sniping at DirecTV was nonprofessional at best, reprehensible at worst.

WHO TOLD THEM THIS WOULD WORK AND WHY HAVEN'T THEY BEEN FIRED?

Were I a major Viacom stockholder I would be furious. Were I an advertiser I would be demanding major make-goods. Were I a viewer (oh, I am! ) I would have found something else to watch (oh, I did! )

Other program suppliers will learn the lesson that Viacom has. Don't screw with DirecTV. DirecTV can now go before Congress (yes, expect hearings) in a strong position. And yes, our rates will probably go up.

But the shows will be there for years to come.

The days of grow grow grow subscribers at all costs are over, we can sustain what you throw at us so think real hard before you do it.

An excellent point....DBS is now a mature industry, and all the players need to act as such.

I think we have learned that the Sat/Cable providers are going to be more willing to play hardball a bit more, which should help in keeping subscription rates from climbing too fast and too high. And I think we have learned that for all the gnashing of teeth we did about the channels not seen, we didn't miss them anywhere near as much as we thought we would.

I think that Direct learned that taking down a fairly big content provider's stations isn't as costly as it might have been thought.

And I think that the other content providers learned, or should have learned, that going very negative and doing childish things is not in their best interest.

I think we have learned that the Sat/Cable providers are going to be more willing to play hardball a bit more, which should help in keeping subscription rates from climbing too fast and too high. And I think we have learned that for all the gnashing of teeth we did about the channels not seen, we didn't miss them anywhere near as much as we thought we would.

I think that Direct learned that taking down a fairly big content provider's stations isn't as costly as it might have been thought.

And I think that the other content providers learned, or should have learned, that going very negative and doing childish things is not in their best interest.

They picked their battle. Big player but nothing essential to the business on a day-to-day basis. They could not have pulled this with espn. Good choice. Maybe a landmark for the business.

Disney has significant leverage with ESPN, far more than Viacom ever had. Since, Unlike the Viacom channels, the decision makers at the house who pay the sat bill will care about missing Monday night football, whereas those same decision makers wouldn't be nearly willing to switch providers because their teen cannot watch Jersey Shore.

Disney has significant leverage with ESPN, far more than Viacom ever had. Since, Unlike the Viacom channels, the decision makers at the house who pay the sat bill will care about missing Monday night football, whereas those same decision makers wouldn't be nearly willing to switch providers because their teen cannot watch Jersey Shore.

Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.

Is it really such a great victory that we now have to pay 15% more for some lousy Viacom channels instead of 30% more? I would call that a defeat for us, the customers.

Well, uhm, yes. In my opinion anyway. The reality is the content was going up but instead of going up to the level they wanted, it will not go up as high. All depends how you view things I suppose, but I'd rather pay $3.50 for gas than $4.00. Of course, I'd rather not pay anything for it, but that isn't reasonable.

Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.

If, during some future dispute with Disney, the ESPN channels were pulled I seriously doubt that it isn't the #1 channel would hold much water. The torches and pitchforks would come out very quickly and there'd be rioting in the streets.

.................... There are none so blind as those who can not see it in HD........... Directv customer since January 2000...........

If, during some future dispute with Disney, the ESPN channels were pulled I seriously doubt that it isn't the #1 channel would hold much water. The torches and pitchforks would come out very quickly and there'd be rioting in the streets.

OK - who's going to be the first satco/cableco to let ESPN go dark?

The only lesson I can think of would be what happened in New York last winter when Time Warner yanked MSG off its systems for seven weeks, denying Knicks and Rangers telecasts to 3 million subscribers. New York's governor had to intervene in that dispute, according to Bloomberg News. I don't think you will find the president of the United States doing the same thing if ESPN goes dark.

Frankly, I believe this is shaping up to be the doomsday dispute that could do serious -- maybe even historic -- damage to both sides.

-- Ira

================================================"There are no solutions to complex problems" -- Stan Littman, longtime social studies teacher at The Bronx High School of Science

I don't like sports one iota, I don't have anything to say about people that do, but I have always said half the stuff on D* is junk and that takes in all of viacom, that is your junk, I would like to see D* come out with a pakage without sportsp.s. I don't know if this is the right place to send a reply or not, if its not would someone please tell me how, it looks like I would know by now.wmj5@aol.com jerry johnson

Well, uhm, yes. In my opinion anyway. The reality is the content was going up but instead of going up to the level they wanted, it will not go up as high. All depends how you view things I suppose, but I'd rather pay $3.50 for gas than $4.00. Of course, I'd rather not pay anything for it, but that isn't reasonable.

Viacom did everything it could to sabotage DTV, including forcing DTV to give millions of dollars away in credits to customers deluging the customer reps.

As I mentioned before, I got $15 to do without Viacom for three months and I would have been fine with a 2 or 3 month outage. DTV had a lot more leverage than they thought and could have driven a much better deal and at lower costs. How many kids who miss Nickelodeon are going to call up DTV to cancel their service? Not too many would care and of course are not authorized to.

The only lesson I can think of would be what happened in New York last winter when Time Warner yanked MSG off its systems for seven weeks, denying Knicks and Rangers telecasts to 3 million subscribers. New York's governor had to intervene in that dispute, according to Bloomberg News. I don't think you will find the president of the United States doing the same thing if ESPN goes dark.

Frankly, I believe this is shaping up to be the doomsday dispute that could do serious -- maybe even historic -- damage to both sides.

I'd love to see a comeuppance to ESPN. I can't stand what they have done to college sports and I don't like the way they cover and jam down our throats those sports they carry while largely ignoring a sport if they don't carry it (ie watch their afternoon shows and see what topics are covered and which are ignored and compare that to whether ESPN is carrying that sport).

With all I can't stand about ESPN, it is probably still the channel I watch most, because of the content they have. That is unbelievable leverage IMO, a network who I largely can't stand, I still watch.

Maybe, but don't forget Nick channel is the number 1 rated channel on D*. ESPN is not. Many people do not care about sports one iota. However, to your point, the difference is who is paying the bill...the kids or the parents. Typically you can find something else for the kids to do, parents not so much.

Nick maybe #1 but it does not bring in close to the revenue that ESPN brings. Even a lower rated ESPN brings in much more revenue to the providers than the higher rated nick. How many bars and restaurants carry DirecTV because of ESPN and not Nick? How much more add revenue and revenue from sporting events does ESPN bring compared to Nick?

I'd love to see a comeuppance to ESPN. I can't stand what they have done to college sports and I don't like the way they cover and jam down our throats those sports they carry while largely ignoring a sport if they don't carry it (ie watch their afternoon shows and see what topics are covered and which are ignored and compare that to whether ESPN is carrying that sport).

With all I can't stand about ESPN, it is probably still the channel I watch most, because of the content they have. That is unbelievable leverage IMO, a network who I largely can't stand, I still watch.

You mean like the NHL that they ignore now while acting like every NBA game they ever air is a ***** classic in SC highlights?